Sharyl Attkisson US Dept. of Justice lawsuit experience echoes Attorneys Sidney Powell and Ty Clevenger discovery attempts, Corrupt USDOJ and judges, Judge Wynn dissenting opinion

Sharyl Attkisson US Dept. of Justice lawsuit experience echoes Attorneys Sidney Powell and Ty Clevenger discovery attempts, Corrupt USDOJ and judges, Judge Wynn dissenting opinion

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October 23, 2019

“Why John Brennan, Peter Strzok and DOJ Needed Julian Assange Arrested”…The Conservative Treehouse November 3, 2019

“The FBI clearly has records pertaining to Seth Rich, and it has withheld those
records in bad faith.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger October 11, 2019


From the Sharyl Attkisson appeal decision of March 21, 2019.

Judge Wynn dissenting opinion.

“In this case, the government—not unlike Dean Smith’s Tar Heels—put up the “fours” when Plaintiff-Appellant Sharyl Attkisson,3 a journalist formerly employed by CBS News, filed suit against unnamed employees and agents of the federal government (the “Doe Defendants”). Attkisson alleged that the Doe Defendants conspired to violate her constitutional and statutory rights by accessing and commandeering her home and work internet-connected devices for surveillance purposes. But Attkisson never got a meaningful opportunity to pursue her claims because the government did everything in its power to run out the clock on Attkisson’s action—it filed motions challenging venue and jurisdiction, motions challenging the sufficiency of service, motions for extension of time, motions to dismiss, and motions for protective orders.

And just as the Tar Heels had great success running the Four Corners, the government’s strategy worked. Although Attkisson diligently sought to identify the Doe Defendants for nearly four years—including by repeatedly serving discovery on the government and third-parties directed at identifying the Doe Defendants—the district court dismissed her case with prejudice against the Doe Defendants for failing to comply with a court order to identify the names of the Doe Defendants by a date certain. The district court did so even though the government’s delaying tactics deprived Attkisson of any meaningful opportunity to engage in the discovery necessary to identify the Doe Defendants.

The majority opinion affirms the district court’s dismissal of Attkisson’s claims against the Doe Defendants on grounds that the dismissal constituted a permissible exercise of the court’s discretion to oversee discovery and sanction a party for failing to comply with a court order. But this Court long has held that plaintiffs—like Attkisson—who state a plausible claim that unnamed defendants violated their constitutional or statutory rights are entitled to a meaningful opportunity to engage in discovery aimed at identifying the “true identity of an unnamed party.” Schiff v. Kennedy, 691 F.2d 196, 197–98 (4th Cir. 1982). And this Court has held that dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a court order is a “drastic” sanction, Hillig v. C.I.R., 916 F.2d 171, 174 (4th Cir. 1990), that courts should impose only in “extreme circumstances,” Reizakis v. Loy, 490 F.2d 1132, 1135 (4th Cir. 1974).

Because the government deprived Attkisson of a meaningful opportunity to identify the Doe Defendants and the district court never determined that the requisite “extreme circumstances” were present to warrant dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, I disagree with the majority opinion’s determination that the district court permissibly exercised its discretion in dismissing Attkisson’s claims against the Doe Defendants. Not only should we disapprove of the tactics the government used to run out the clock on Attkisson’s claims, but we should also reject the troubling “game plan” it provided for the government and private parties to prevent disclosure of—and, therefore, responsibility for—their potentially unconstitutional or illegal electronic surveillance activities. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent as to the dismissal of Attkisson’s claims against the Doe Defendants.”

Read more:

Just as in the General Michael Flynn case, represented by Attorney Sidney Powell and the Seth Rich controversies involving Ed Butowsky, represented by Attorney Ty Clevenger, we have the US Justice Dept. not cooperating in discovery and withholding crucial information as well as corrupt/incompetent judges not upholding the US Constitution.


More here:


11 responses to “Sharyl Attkisson US Dept. of Justice lawsuit experience echoes Attorneys Sidney Powell and Ty Clevenger discovery attempts, Corrupt USDOJ and judges, Judge Wynn dissenting opinion

  1. Will John Brennan, James Comey, et al squeal on Obama?

  2. From Sharyl Attkisson:

    “In March of 2019, an appellate panel of three judges determined the former Attorney General Eric Holder has immunity from Attkisson’s claims.

    Two of the three judges ruled Attkisson’s claims should be dismissed because she took too long, three years— and without success—to determine the names of the “John Doe” federal agents involved in the intrusions of her computers.

    A third judge rightly dissented, understanding that Attkisson consistently attempted to identify the John Does but the Department of Justice continuously blocked discovery, filed protective orders and filed motions to dismiss in an attempt to obstruct. The government did not turn over a single piece of paper in response to more than a dozen subpoenas.

    The dissenting judge called the government’s actions “Kafkaesque” for obstructing Attkisson and then blaming her for “taking too long.”

    Attkisson continues to move forward with the lawsuit.

    The Department of Justice continues to spend tax money to fight her.”

  3. CW………
    …………CRAPPER might squeal, but Susan Rice, John Brennan, Comey and all the others will probably GO DOWN WITH THEIR SHIP.

  4. AND NOW……….

  5. AND ………
    ………..the mass murder of civilian air travelers should be seen as a war crime, and the head honcho of the responsible regime prosecuted at the Hague. Hanging would be a reasonable penalty. These raving lunatics have fomented mass murder, and mayhem for decades. In their LUNACY if you are an infidel you are on their schedule to be murdered.

    ……..NOT THE RIGHT WORD. Had IRANI JANI “unintentionally” acted then the aircraft would simply not have been shot down. The fact that the launch button was pressed says it was done with INTENT. If there was NO INTENT to launch the missile then the button would not have been pressed. Perhaps a more suitable word would be INADVERTENTLY. If it was done by accident then the word ACCIDENTALLY should be used. Now consider that in the case of a Boeing 737 the word inadvertently might not be suitable either because all commercial aircraft have transponders which are in operation when the aircraft is flying. The transponders always INDENTIFY the aircraft on RADAR. SAM 15 missiles are RADAR directed. The aircraft identity would have been clearly shown on the missile battery radar. With this eliminated the reason for pressing the button comes down to either STUPIDITY, ANGER, FANATICISM, LUNACY or a combination of all..

  7. AND TONIGHT……..
    ………..Marc Levin is discussing the life of Sir Winston Churchill. Great discussion ongoing!!!!!

  8. CW, oldsailor85++
    Found this post…and now?
    Has President Trump Forgotten The Declassification Material He Delayed then Deferred?…

    President Trump asks: “Are these “dirty cops” going to pay a big price for the fraud they committed?”
    However, the only person who can honestly answer that question is the person in the mirror when President Trump brushes his teeth. Perhaps forgotten…

    In the spring of 2018 a group of congressional reps led by Devin Nunes, Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz, Louie Gohmert, Lee Zeldin and Bob Goodlatte, asked President Trump to declassify a series of documents so the public could see how former officials in the DOJ & FBI abused their offices and conducted political surveillance.

    In September of 2018, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein asked President Trump not to declassify those same documents until after the Mueller probe was complete. Rosenstein informed the President (confirmed in later POTUS interviews) that declassifying the material could be interpreted as impeding the Mueller investigation.

    Two months later, in November 2018, the mid-term election took place. Republicans lost the House and their committee chairs. Many people suspected (I concur) the mid-term election was the real motive for the Sept. 2018 request from Rosenstein. Four months after the mid-term, March 2019, the Mueller investigation of President Trump ended.

    Two months after the Mueller probe ended U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr, a profoundly supportive voice for DAG Rosenstein, asked President Trump to grant him unilateral declassification authority to assist the purposes and intents of his DOJ effort. President Trump granted U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr with the authority to declassify on May 23rd, 2019; granting access to the same documents requested by congress a year earlier.

    So what’s next?

  9. hapnHal………
    ………….assuming all of the facts are accurate then there would be justification to question the rationale in Trump’s crowd. It seems as though there was or is another force which is dominating over the entire ball of wax. Is the ULTIMATE DEEP STATE NOW DICTATING TO TRUMP?

  10. hapnHal………
    ………….yes I too have wondered why exactly the FISA stuff was NEVER made public even though Trump had stated PUBLICLY that he intended to. This has been a point of irritation for me ever since.

  11. hapnHal……..
    ………it seems as though Tom Fitton is about the only person who has gotten any results. Even for him it has become politically complicated, not to mention extremely expensive. Everything he has been able to force the release of has come at great expense, and using the Federal courts along with FOIA.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s